I've always had a hard time understanding what constitutes a "reach" in the first 3 rounds of the draft. Essentially picking in those rounds you're hoping your picks will start generally that year. Why does it matter then, if you take a guy you have targeted in say the second or first, if he's projected to go in the third? If your scouts and GM, believe in the guy and believe he'll be a starter, what difference does it make? It just seems a bit relative, to me.

The only thing I can think of is salary. However, if the league adopts a reasonable scale for rookies, then does the whole "value" thing go away?

The reason I ask is this.

Say Player X, is projected to go around pick #30, and as a team you have picks #10 and #47. You might not be able to swing a trade to get pick #30, but Player X fills a desperate need, and the "BPA" at #10 is at a position you don't have a need for. If the "scale" is in place would it be stupid to take Player X at #10 then? Or is there another factor I'm completely missing?

PHINSfan

04-04-2007, 09:02 AM

You may very well see that this year if the reports regarding Joe Staley are true. The Phins may feel that this is the guy they want and if they find no takers to trade down, they may very well pull the trigger on a guy that's rated much lower than the #9 pick in th draft.
As far as the rest of your question I'll leave that for Chris, Keith or Simon. Those guys really know their stuff!!

arsenal

04-04-2007, 09:27 AM

reaching is such an objective term... every team has players ranked where they have them... for example some team might have brady quinn as the 20th best prospect, while we might have him as the 3rd... so if we take him at 9 did we reach? not to us... but maybe we did to the other team...

"experts" will call picks a reach if they dont agree with it... everyone says the bills reached for whitner, but they got the player they wanted and wouldn't have been able to get any other way... thats not reaching, its drafting the player you want...

I hear you Mr. Yu, but that was just bad talent evaluation on some of them, not just because they are "reaches". Eddie Moore for example. Besides the fact that we had other holes to fill, the reason that pick was a problem was because he wasn't the player that they thought he was. That happens to "reaches" and #1 picks. Say Moore panned out and was a really good player for us, then it wouldn't have been a reach at all. I believe most boards had him lower 2nd to 3rd. If he had been picked there he'd still have been out of the league by now.

TractorTraylor

04-04-2007, 11:05 AM

Reaches also refer to the fact that if you draft someone, that player would have still been able to be picked at a later spot (i.e. Next Round). The key thing to remember when talking about reaches is VALUE. In a year like this one, there is a deep WR class. The difference between the player you'd get in the first round and the second round is minimal since the talent is so deep. However, if we were talking about a punter for our first pick, that'd be a reach since we would be able to get him in later rounds without sacrificing value. But like others have said, reach can mean a million different things to a million different people..

Hope that helps..

MastR_EvaluatoR

04-04-2007, 11:06 AM

To me, it's very easy to define a reach.. Quite simply, it's a player drafted who went much earlier than expected .

Finascious D

04-04-2007, 01:00 PM

To me, it's very easy to define a reach.. Quite simply, it's a player drafted who went much earlier than expected .

I do understand what "reach" means, I just don't necessarily buy into the fact that it is such a negative thing, and that is the crux of my question.

Finascious D

04-04-2007, 01:10 PM

Reaches also refer to the fact that if you draft someone, that player would have still been able to be picked at a later spot (i.e. Next Round). The key thing to remember when talking about reaches is VALUE. In a year like this one, there is a deep WR class. The difference between the player you'd get in the first round and the second round is minimal since the talent is so deep. However, if we were talking about a punter for our first pick, that'd be a reach since we would be able to get him in later rounds without sacrificing value. But like others have said, reach can mean a million different things to a million different people..

Hope that helps..

I appreciate the attempt. My point though is, yes, they'll be available later, but that still doesn't mean you'll get them. Getting the players you want is what the draft is about, not necessarily gambling if they'll be there later.

Think of it in these terms. Take Ebay. Many items have a BuyNow feature. It generally costs more to "buy it now" but at least you're guaranteeing you'll get what you're looking for. Sure, I could have played the bid game and gotten the same item for much lower price but I run the significant risk of losing out on that item entirely. If its something I want badly enough, I'll go BuyNow.

I just think way too much of this, is based on relative value, instead of actual value.

I believe this player makes my team better, I want him, I want to guarantee I get him. Isn't that value?

showstopper

04-04-2007, 01:24 PM

Sorry but Jason Allen was not a reach at #16, he would have been gone by #20, if we didn't take him there.

HybridPHIN 23

04-04-2007, 01:26 PM

Reaches also refer to the fact that if you draft someone, that player would have still been able to be picked at a later spot (i.e. Next Round). The key thing to remember when talking about reaches is VALUE. In a year like this one, there is a deep WR class. The difference between the player you'd get in the first round and the second round is minimal since the talent is so deep. However, if we were talking about a punter for our first pick, that'd be a reach since we would be able to get him in later rounds without sacrificing value. But like others have said, reach can mean a million different things to a million different people..

Hope that helps..

good points those are some factors..

Phinsfan-Jay

04-04-2007, 01:29 PM

okay dude heres the deal

miami picks at # 9 this year

Our main needs at this time are- LT, QB, CB, S, C, WR, TE in no particular order.

Our most pressing needs are LT and QB

now lets say Quinn is off the board and so is Russell, and Laron Landry.

The issue now is, do we spend that 9th pick on Levi Brown from Penn State.
We could and it would be a reach by about 2 -3 spots so it would almost go un questioned.

Now lets say we REACHED and Got Drew stanton with our 9th pick.

yea he will probably be good and that is a need the trade off to filling another hole with a player of better value vs getting him in the 2nd would be immense, bottom line is you can get lets say Laron Landry at 9 and get Stanton with our 2a pick .

now we have LANDRY filling the need at Saftey and was simply BPA
and we have a QB who's upside equals the value in which we selected him.

HybridPHIN 23

04-04-2007, 01:30 PM

I appreciate the attempt. My point though is, yes, they'll be available later, but that still doesn't mean you'll get them. Getting the players you want is what the draft is about, not necessarily gambling if they'll be there later.

Think of it in these terms. Take Ebay. Many items have a BuyNow feature. It generally costs more to "buy it now" but at least you're guaranteeing you'll get what you're looking for. Sure, I could have played the bid game and gotten the same item for much lower price but I run the significant risk of losing out on that item entirely. If its something I want badly enough, I'll go BuyNow.

I just think way too much of this, is based on relative value, instead of actual value.

I believe this player makes my team better, I want him, I want to guarantee I get him. Isn't that value? Sure it's value but it's not always the most valuable....... i think your confusing value and need, or trying to merge them into one maybe.:lol: When people say value it doesnt neccessarily mean (value to your team)..... that is the "need"......... value is getting the best overall player regardless of what holes you hafta fill (bang for your buck)..... taking a need when a better player on the board is a reach........yes sometimes i guess reaching for the need could be the best option for your team.
I think you could have made his alot simpler if you asked:

"Isn't filling a need more valuable than BPA ?? " That is a good question IMO...

Phinsfan-Jay

04-04-2007, 01:38 PM

Value is when last year Ashton Youboty was projected to be a low 1st high 2nd round corner.

He had a crap combine, some folks didn't wanna gamble on him.

The Buffalo Bills snagged him with their 3rd rounder.

That is value because you got a higher than expected player at a lower round.

Now alot of people considered the bills pick of Donte Whitner to be a Reach, No one questioned Donte Whitners abilities.

The dolphins were aiming for Whitner with our 16th pick which was right where we picked, so one of our needs fell with where a BPA was supposed to be taken that too is value not because of the player but the spot we picked and the BPA matched our need. so it was convenient, but due to the Bills reach at 8 we were stuck with the next best saftey Jason Allen. who in many eyes would have been taken more around 20 - 28.
Its all about projections and where a player is expected to go and almost guaranteed to go.

Finascious D

04-04-2007, 03:14 PM

Sure it's value but it's not always the most valuable....... i think your confusing value and need, or trying to merge them into one maybe.:lol: When people say value it doesnt neccessarily mean (value to your team)..... that is the "need"......... value is getting the best overall player regardless of what holes you hafta fill (bang for your buck)..... taking a need when a better player on the board is a reach........yes sometimes i guess reaching for the need could be the best option for your team.
I think you could have made his alot simpler if you asked:

"Isn't filling a need more valuable than BPA ?? " That is a good question IMO...

(I don't mean to appear argumentative, so I'm sorry if that's how I'm coming off. I just think my point is being missed.)

Actually, in a way, I am merging value and need. I'll also admit my question is probably confusing. Sorry :D.

I understand what is meant by "value" as it pertains to the draft. However, I'm saying I believe it to be flawed, if it is based on anything other than salary. There are only one or two "can't miss prospects" every year, if that. So, outside of those prospects who's to say who's better at a given position. If anyone knew exactly how good someone was going to be then "value" makes sense. Since we don't know how good someone is going to be (Ryan Leaf to Tom Brady) then the only value that can be truly assessed is based on team needs or a FO's beliefs.

Based on that and the fact that rookies haven't earned any money yet, I suggest that the NFL institute a per round pay scale for one year. Everyone picked in the first round gets the same amount of money. Second round, and so on. After that, if you play well, you renegotiate your contract for ridiculous money. I think that way would also limit what is considered a "reach" and teams might not pass or lose out on a player they need.

Mr Yu

04-04-2007, 03:14 PM

I hear you Mr. Yu, but that was just bad talent evaluation on some of them, not just because they are "reaches". Eddie Moore for example. Besides the fact that we had other holes to fill, the reason that pick was a problem was because he wasn't the player that they thought he was. That happens to "reaches" and #1 picks. Say Moore panned out and was a really good player for us, then it wouldn't have been a reach at all. I believe most boards had him lower 2nd to 3rd. If he had been picked there he'd still have been out of the league by now.

I agree with you on the poor talent evaluation , but Moore was a an acknowleged reach at the time. Even if he had worked out , he could have been taken later in the draft. Zach for example would have been a great pick in the 1st round due to his production , but a reach because he was a 5th round slotted player. The Dolphins have been reaching for players for some time , passing over better talented that should have been selected or were selected right after their pick.

Finascious D

04-04-2007, 03:18 PM

Value is when last year Ashton Youboty was projected to be a low 1st high 2nd round corner.

He had a crap combine, some folks didn't wanna gamble on him.

The Buffalo Bills snagged him with their 3rd rounder.

That is value because you got a higher than expected player at a lower round.

Now alot of people considered the bills pick of Donte Whitner to be a Reach, No one questioned Donte Whitners abilities.

The dolphins were aiming for Whitner with our 16th pick which was right where we picked, so one of our needs fell with where a BPA was supposed to be taken that too is value not because of the player but the spot we picked and the BPA matched our need. so it was convenient, but due to the Bills reach at 8 we were stuck with the next best saftey Jason Allen. who in many eyes would have been taken more around 20 - 28.
Its all about projections and where a player is expected to go and almost guaranteed to go.

I do understand, I just think that "projection" part of it is flawed. If you have the best projected LB, TE, RG staring you in the face on draft day, which one is the better player? How do you rate who's 1, 2, or 3?

Finascious D

04-04-2007, 03:21 PM

I agree with you on the poor talent evaluation , but Moore was a an acknowleged reach at the time. Even if he had worked out , he could have been taken later in the draft. Zach for example would have been a great pick in the 1st round due to his production , but a reach because he was a 5th round slotted player. The Dolphins have been reaching for players for some time , passing over better talented that should have been selected or were selected right after their pick.

True. However you're assuming that we would have been able to get him in the later rounds. Someone still could have grabbed him before our later round pick. Then what?

Mr Yu

04-04-2007, 03:40 PM

True. However you're assuming that we would have been able to get him in the later rounds. Someone still could have grabbed him before our later round pick. Then what?

I was attempting to point out the value of slotting players and picking them at the right point in the draft. I really shouldn't have used Zach or as others use Tom Brady as they are exceptional players regardless of the round. I guess the point is if your reach selection is a round early and he pans out , great you filled a need and didn't risk on passing on your guy. If you trade away a future 2nd round pick for a 3rd to pick Morlon Greenwood , then your reach miss fired. Call it reaching for a stiff : avoiding known talent to pick a stiff that will be on the board later. This is commonly known as the Wanny Fletcher theory , not to be confused with the Wanny Fieldler theory.

Finascious D

04-04-2007, 04:17 PM

I was attempting to point out the value of slotting players and picking them at the right point in the draft. I really shouldn't have used Zach or as others use Tom Brady as they are exceptional players regardless of the round. I guess the point is if your reach selection is a round early and he pans out , great you filled a need and didn't risk on passing on your guy. If you trade away a future 2nd round pick for a 3rd to pick Morlon Greenwood , then your reach miss fired. Call it reaching for a stiff : avoiding known talent to pick a stiff that will be on the board later. This is commonly known as the Wanny Fletcher theory , not to be confused with the Wanny Fieldler theory.

:sidelol:
Absolutely. I'm not in favor of trading away picks, unless its on a can't miss prospect. You're really gambling with giving up picks, and I'll rarely agree in taking less picks than you should have. That's my point. If they had taken Greenwood with 2nd round pick, they could've picked another player with the 3rd round AND had the future 2nd as well and still got the guy they targeted. Granted Greenwood didn't pan out, but you know what I'm trying to say.

Mr Yu

04-04-2007, 04:37 PM

:sidelol:
Absolutely. I'm not in favor of trading away picks, unless its on a can't miss prospect. You're really gambling with giving up picks, and I'll rarely agree in taking less picks than you should have. That's my point. If they had taken Greenwood with 2nd round pick, they could've picked another player with the 3rd round AND had the future 2nd as well and still got the guy they targeted. Granted Greenwood didn't pan out, but you know what I'm trying to say.

Yea , we are saying the same thing. The one thing JJ did well was value his picks and move around the board to gain picks allowing him to pick some reaches. After JJ , we moved picks to reach for players who were stiffs , leaving us without a player and a higher pick. It's our number one reason why we are in the postion we are in today.

Fletcher was drafted to the wrong system - a zone CB into a press system; Carey was value at that pick and Allen was a top 10 pick coming into his senior season and no way was a reach.

Crowder52

04-04-2007, 05:30 PM

In my opinion, the only time you "reach" is if you could have gotten that player with your next pick. People said the Bengals "reached" a few years back when they drafted Levi Jones, but now he is a Pro-Bowl tackle and he looks like a steal instead of a reach.

The notion of a reach is pretty absurd to me. Everyone has their own draft boards and makes their picks from there. Like last year, the Bills took Whitner early, obviously they had him rated that high. To call it a reach because it's different from Kiper of McShay's projections is idiotic.

circumstances

04-04-2007, 05:35 PM

here's my take on this. based on their own evaluations the dolphin's front office will "rank" each available player numerically regardless of position. the front office also knows exactly what the team's needs are (which they probably factored into the number given to each player for their value to us). when pick number 9 rolls around on draft day (barring a trade), you would hope and pray that a player the FO has ranked #8 or higher overall will still be on the board. at that point you take whoever has the highest ranking on YOUR (ie: the dolphins) draft board. HOWEVER, if player #6 and player #8 are both still available and player #8 is a position of dire need and player #6 is a position of less need, you have a decision to make. the reason that player was rated #6 was likely because he is quite a bit more talented than player #8. taking #8 to fill the need and passing on #6 (although a more talented player in the team's opinion) is a bit of reach and something teams firmly adhering to BPA would likely not do. they would take the player ranked higher on their board and be done with it. you can see how you really wouldn't want to make too many reaches of this kind, once you have assigned your own "values" to each player. the dolphins have several holes to fill so that needing to reach for even a couple of spots is unlikely, let alone grabbing a player at #9 that they have ranked 12, 15, 18 etc. not even to mention a player with a second round grade.

Finascious D

04-04-2007, 10:00 PM

here's my take on this. based on their own evaluations the dolphin's front office will "rank" each available player numerically regardless of position. the front office also knows exactly what the team's needs are (which they probably factored into the number given to each player for their value to us). when pick number 9 rolls around on draft day (barring a trade), you would hope and pray that a player the FO has ranked #8 or higher overall will still be on the board. at that point you take whoever has the highest ranking on YOUR (ie: the dolphins) draft board. HOWEVER, if player #6 and player #8 are both still available and player #8 is a position of dire need and player #6 is a position of less need, you have a decision to make. the reason that player was rated #6 was likely because he is quite a bit more talented than player #8. taking #8 to fill the need and passing on #6 (although a more talented player in the team's opinion) is a bit of reach and something teams firmly adhering to BPA would likely not do. they would take the player ranked higher on their board and be done with it. you can see how you really wouldn't want to make too many reaches of this kind, once you have assigned your own "values" to each player. the dolphins have several holes to fill so that needing to reach for even a couple of spots is unlikely, let alone grabbing a player at #9 that they have ranked 12, 15, 18 etc. not even to mention a player with a second round grade.

Yes...sort of.
Using your example, why not take the #8 over the #6. If you take 6, your strengthening a position of strength. Why?

Not to sound Madden-ish, but consider a given team has an over all number assigned to it using the total of the individual player's numbers. For example: Team Circumstances has an overall score of 75. His best player is a LB at 90, his worst is FS at 70. Its time to draft, and you're picking at 9. Player A is rated at a number 95 and is a LB, Player B is rated at 89 and is a FS. Sure, the LB is really good, but how does taking him improve your team more dramatically then the FS?

Now I know there's the whole argument that, if you pick BPA, then you're giving yourself flexibility with adding picks in the future. But, I'm of the belief we can't afford to do that yet. If we were the Patriots, whose holes are few and can still be at the top of league, then sure go for it. But, unfortunately that ain't us.

Mr Yu

04-04-2007, 11:19 PM

Fletcher, Carey and Allen weren't reaches.

Fletcher was drafted to the wrong system - a zone CB into a press system; Carey was value at that pick and Allen was a top 10 pick coming into his senior season and no way was a reach.

With respect , I disagree. Perhaps my view of reaching is what the franchise is doing to select a player. When you have a need at QB and you pick a CB with 2 Pro Bowlers in front and he can't play in your system , you reached.

With Carey , the Fins panic and give up a 4th to move up under threat. Consider how people have been happy to 6th & 7th rounders in trades. That's a potential player off of the roster. The franchised reached.

We'll see about Allen. For a team in need of a immiediate starters , picking a guy coming off of an injury was suspect. Is he CB or S? Will he play this year?

Again , I qualify reaching as what the franchise does at that point in the draft.

Mr Yu

04-04-2007, 11:26 PM

Yes...sort of.
Using your example, why not take the #8 over the #6. If you take 6, your strengthening a position of strength. Why?

Not to sound Madden-ish, but consider a given team has an over all number assigned to it using the total of the individual player's numbers. For example: Team Circumstances has an overall score of 75. His best player is a LB at 90, his worst is FS at 70. Its time to draft, and you're picking at 9. Player A is rated at a number 95 and is a LB, Player B is rated at 89 and is a FS. Sure, the LB is really good, but how does taking him improve your team more dramatically then the FS?

Now I know there's the whole argument that, if you pick BPA, then you're giving yourself flexibility with adding picks in the future. But, I'm of the belief we can't afford to do that yet. If we were the Patriots, whose holes are few and can still be at the top of league, then sure go for it. But, unfortunately that ain't us.

Great post. The whole BPAs you make your roster stronger as oppose to reaching for an LT that can't play the position and that you will eventually need either cut and move to guard, After that you have to pay for a FA LT anyways. Your going to use your FA money anyways , get the talent and make it work. NE trades players or loes them for comp picks.

Mr Yu

04-04-2007, 11:29 PM

In my opinion, the only time you "reach" is if you could have gotten that player with your next pick. People said the Bengals "reached" a few years back when they drafted Levi Jones, but now he is a Pro-Bowl tackle and he looks like a steal instead of a reach.

The notion of a reach is pretty absurd to me. Everyone has their own draft boards and makes their picks from there. Like last year, the Bills took Whitner early, obviously they had him rated that high. To call it a reach because it's different from Kiper of McShay's projections is idiotic.

I see what your saying , but you still have to value the pick. The Dolphins have been picking players too high , giving a way too many picks and selecting busts for a number of years. That's why this franchise is in the mess that it is.

zach8111

04-05-2007, 12:09 AM

I've always had a hard time understanding what constitutes a "reach" in the first 3 rounds of the draft. Essentially picking in those rounds you're hoping your picks will start generally that year. Why does it matter then, if you take a guy you have targeted in say the second or first, if he's projected to go in the third? If your scouts and GM, believe in the guy and believe he'll be a starter, what difference does it make? It just seems a bit relative, to me.

The only thing I can think of is salary. However, if the league adopts a reasonable scale for rookies, then does the whole "value" thing go away?

The reason I ask is this.

Say Player X, is projected to go around pick #30, and as a team you have picks #10 and #47. You might not be able to swing a trade to get pick #30, but Player X fills a desperate need, and the "BPA" at #10 is at a position you don't have a need for. If the "scale" is in place would it be stupid to take Player X at #10 then? Or is there another factor I'm completely missing?
yes you could take a guy in the first that is projected to go in the second but then why not take a guy in the first then take your guy in the second instead of taking him in the first. if he is projected WAY higher than your second or you pic late second and he is projected early second then maybe trade down and get an extra pick and still get the guy you want.

RichmondWeb

04-05-2007, 12:12 AM

First of all it is best to draft for the future, few rookies are ready to play year one. A reach to me is when you leave the plateau of players to get a certain lower rated guy. The problem is you lose draft value because you could trade down and likely get your guy PLUS some extra draft picks. Last year Buffalo could have traded down to 14 from 8, gotten Whittner plus a bonus 2nd rounder from Philly who wanted to go up for Bunckley (whom they got anyway) but the Bills lost out because they reached. It is dangerous to fall in love with a player and to leave the talent plateau to go down because you may miss draft opportunities. Again, if you have gaping holes, find FA help and use the draft to build the future; the more picks the better.

RW

Crowder52

04-05-2007, 01:09 AM

I see what your saying , but you still have to value the pick. The Dolphins have been picking players too high , giving a way too many picks and selecting busts for a number of years. That's why this franchise is in the mess that it is.

I agree, and that's the problem. It's not like we are "reaching" by taking guys way down on our list. We must be taking the guy we have rated highest when we're on the clock (at least I would hope so). That's why I wouldn't call them "reaches" so much as I would bad work by the personnel/scouting department.

Finascious D

04-05-2007, 01:36 AM

yes you could take a guy in the first that is projected to go in the second but then why not take a guy in the first then take your guy in the second instead of taking him in the first. if he is projected WAY higher than your second or you pic late second and he is projected early second then maybe trade down and get an extra pick and still get the guy you want.

First of all it is best to draft for the future, few rookies are ready to play year one. A reach to me is when you leave the plateau of players to get a certain lower rated guy. The problem is you lose draft value because you could trade down and likely get your guy PLUS some extra draft picks. Last year Buffalo could have traded down to 14 from 8, gotten Whittner plus a bonus 2nd rounder from Philly who wanted to go up for Bunckley (whom they got anyway) but the Bills lost out because they reached. It is dangerous to fall in love with a player and to leave the talent plateau to go down because you may miss draft opportunities. Again, if you have gaping holes, find FA help and use the draft to build the future; the more picks the better.

Yes of course, getting more picks is the purest form of "value". You'll never hear me complain about obtaining more picks. But just because you wish to trade down, doesn't always mean you can, because, alas, you need a trade partner. Don't get me wrong, I believe Ronnie Brown to be the best running back we've EVER had, and will, in time, prove that, but everyone wanted us to move down from the #2 (prime draft real estate) and we couldn't.

There are few guarantees in the draft. You cannot guarantee a player will be good, you cannot guarantee a player you want will be there when you pick, and you cannot guarantee someone will trade down with you. (Well, ok maybe Wannidiot would). The only two guarantees you can have is if you pick first and keep that pick, you'll get the first guy you were targeting, or if you "reach" for the guy you were targeting.

Boomer

04-05-2007, 05:04 AM

With respect , I disagree. Perhaps my view of reaching is what the franchise is doing to select a player. When you have a need at QB and you pick a CB with 2 Pro Bowlers in front and he can't play in your system , you reached.

With Carey , the Fins panic and give up a 4th to move up under threat. Consider how people have been happy to 6th & 7th rounders in trades. That's a potential player off of the roster. The franchised reached.

We'll see about Allen. For a team in need of a immiediate starters , picking a guy coming off of an injury was suspect. Is he CB or S? Will he play this year?

Again , I qualify reaching as what the franchise does at that point in the draft.

With respect, I disagree back ;)

A reach is a player who gets picked ahead of his market value. Now whether he stacks up as value to the team that picks him, is another question. But the argument that you make with a reach is that "you could have traded down and got him". Easy in principle, much more difficult to pull off. In the salary cap era, teams don't want to get loaded with high pick salaries.

Jamar Fletcher was just the wrong pick. He was value at that selection. He was just drafted by buffoons in the wrong system. What's more interesting is that Miami were actually going to pick Willie Middlebrooks who went off the board just previously to Denver. I personally thought we would go Brees, Chambers or Kendrell Bell.

The Carey thing is interesting. A 4th was too high, but in the immediate aftermath, the Patriots' Scott Pioli said that they were on the brink of pulling a trade with the Vikes to move up to get Carey, so I can sort of understand why they did it. They wanted Shawn Andrews, but then fell to their 2nd option Carey and after losing Andrews just 2 picks before, didn't want to lose Carey as well. Again, it was a value pick.

The Allen thing - we needed DB help. Allen's value was top 10 coming into his senior year and it was a pick praised across the boards. He got the all clear from the doctors, he was awesome at the Combine - the most athletic DB to come out in the past 3 drafts - and the tape doesn't lie. Whether he's a CB or a safety, that will come out in the wash, but as we stand, it's not a reach.

fullerboy1

04-05-2007, 05:36 AM

With respect, I disagree back ;)

A reach is a player who gets picked ahead of his market value. Now whether he stacks up as value to the team that picks him, is another question. But the argument that you make with a reach is that "you could have traded down and got him". Easy in principle, much more difficult to pull off. In the salary cap era, teams don't want to get loaded with high pick salaries.

Jamar Fletcher was just the wrong pick. He was value at that selection. He was just drafted by buffoons in the wrong system. What's more interesting is that Miami were actually going to pick Willie Middlebrooks who went off the board just previously to Denver. I personally thought we would go Brees, Chambers or Kendrell Bell.

The Carey thing is interesting. A 4th was too high, but in the immediate aftermath, the Patriots' Scott Pioli said that they were on the brink of pulling a trade with the Vikes to move up to get Carey, so I can sort of understand why they did it. They wanted Shawn Andrews, but then fell to their 2nd option Carey and after losing Andrews just 2 picks before, didn't want to lose Carey as well. Again, it was a value pick.

The Allen thing - we needed DB help. Allen's value was top 10 coming into his senior year and it was a pick praised across the boards. He got the all clear from the doctors, he was awesome at the Combine - the most athletic DB to come out in the past 3 drafts - and the tape doesn't lie. Whether he's a CB or a safety, that will come out in the wash, but as we stand, it's not a reach.

You know Boom, you and Ck are a very big reason I love this site, I love you guys analysis of the draft.

circumstances

04-05-2007, 07:53 AM

Yes...sort of.
Using your example, why not take the #8 over the #6. If you take 6, your strengthening a position of strength. Why?

because (sometimes unfortunately) you have to trust your front office. if the guy at #6 is at a position of less need than the guy they have at #8, he is just that much damn better. :)

reaching gets ya eddie moore over anquan boldin (thanks wanny!).

Finascious D

04-05-2007, 09:13 AM

because (sometimes unfortunately) you have to trust your front office. if the guy at #6 is at a position of less need than the guy they have at #8, he is just that much damn better. :)

reaching gets ya eddie moore over anquan boldin (thanks wanny!).

With all due respect, reaching didn't get us Moore instead of Boldin, Wannmoron's incompetence did. Both were relative positions of need, and it was Wannstoop that incorrectly evaluated Mr. Moore. If Moore turned out to be a starter, then no one would be pissed about the pick. Most boards had him at low 2nd early 3rd, which considering were he ended up (nowhere) would have been an actual reach. If he had picked him at where he was projected, then he'd still be out of the league and we would have lost out on another we could have picked. Consider this, if we had had a 1st pick and spent it on Boldin, people would have said it was a reach, until they saw how good he was.

Reaching gets you the player you want. Now, if you want is, not any good because you suck at talent evaluation, then ANY pick you spend on that person is a waste.

Mr Yu

04-05-2007, 09:29 AM

With respect, I disagree back ;)

A reach is a player who gets picked ahead of his market value. Now whether he stacks up as value to the team that picks him, is another question. But the argument that you make with a reach is that "you could have traded down and got him". Easy in principle, much more difficult to pull off. In the salary cap era, teams don't want to get loaded with high pick salaries.

Jamar Fletcher was just the wrong pick. He was value at that selection. He was just drafted by buffoons in the wrong system. What's more interesting is that Miami were actually going to pick Willie Middlebrooks who went off the board just previously to Denver. I personally thought we would go Brees, Chambers or Kendrell Bell.

The Carey thing is interesting. A 4th was too high, but in the immediate aftermath, the Patriots' Scott Pioli said that they were on the brink of pulling a trade with the Vikes to move up to get Carey, so I can sort of understand why they did it. They wanted Shawn Andrews, but then fell to their 2nd option Carey and after losing Andrews just 2 picks before, didn't want to lose Carey as well. Again, it was a value pick.

The Allen thing - we needed DB help. Allen's value was top 10 coming into his senior year and it was a pick praised across the boards. He got the all clear from the doctors, he was awesome at the Combine - the most athletic DB to come out in the past 3 drafts - and the tape doesn't lie. Whether he's a CB or a safety, that will come out in the wash, but as we stand, it's not a reach.

Thanks for the follow up and I see what you are saying. I don't disagree with the definition of a reach that you are using. I am using it as it relates to my team's needs at that time.

Boomer

04-05-2007, 03:08 PM

Thanks for the follow up and I see what you are saying. I don't disagree with the definition of a reach that you are using. I am using it as it relates to my team's needs at that time.

;)

Oh and thanks Fuller.

fullerboy1

04-05-2007, 03:20 PM

;)

Oh and thanks Fuller.

No I thank you bud.

circumstances

04-05-2007, 07:12 PM

maybe i used a poor example, but my take on the boldin - moore fiasco was that boldin was the higher ranked player at the time on our board but wanny wanted a linebacker.

Mr Yu

04-05-2007, 07:58 PM

maybe i used a poor example, but my take on the boldin - moore fiasco was that boldin was the higher ranked player at the time on our board but wanny wanted a linebacker.

Yup. The higher rated player at a higher need position. Reach for the bust.